[IMG]http://www.technologyreview.com/images/logo.png[/IMG]
[SUB]Published by MIT
[/SUB][h2]​Smallest-Ever Nanotube Transistors Outperform Silicon[/h2][SUB][I]A nine-nanometer device shows that nanotubes could be a viable alternative to silicon as electronics get even tinier.[/I][/SUB]
[release]The smallest carbon-nanotube transistor ever made, a nine-nanometer device, performs better than any other transistor has at this size.For over a decade, researchers have promised that carbon nanotubes, with their superior electrical properties, would make for better transistors at ever-tinier sizes, but that claim hadn't been tested in the lab at these extremes. Researchers at IBM who made the nanotube transistors say this is the first experimental evidence that any material is a viable potential replacement for silicon at a size smaller than 10 nanometers.
"The results really highlight the value of nanotubes in the most sophisticated type of transistors," says [URL="http://rogers.matse.illinois.edu/"]John Rogers[/URL], professor of materials science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "They suggest, very clearly, that nanotubes have the potential for doing something truly competitive with, or complementary to, silicon."
The shrinkage of silicon transistors over the past several decades has reduced the cost of electronics and led to more processing power with less energy consumption. But the downsizing of silicon electronics might hit a roadblock at around 10 nanometers, says [URL="http://researcher.ibm.com/researcher/view.php?person=us-aaronf"]Aaron Franklin[/URL], a researcher at the IBM Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, New York. "We are now reaching physical limits," he says. As transistors are made smaller, it gets more difficult to control how electrons move through the silicon channel to turn the transistor on and off. Faced with this unruly, power-draining behavior, Intel announced last year that it would switch to a new, three-dimensional transistor design for its 22-nanometer generation of chips. Other companies are working on so-called ultrathin body transistors. No matter how it's shaped, though, silicon is silicon, and dealing with it at extremely small sizes presents problems even in these new transistor designs.
Many materials have been hyped as a potential replacement for silicon, including carbon nanotubes. That material and others have shown promise in larger transistors, but until now, no one had demonstrated a carbon-nanotube transistor smaller than 10 nanometers. "If nanotubes can't go much further than silicon, then working on them is a waste of time," says Franklin. "We've made nanotube transistors at aggressively scaled dimensions, and shown they are tremendously better than the best silicon devices."
To test how the size of a nanotube transistor affected its performance, Franklin's group made multiple transistors of different sizes along a single nanotube. This enabled them to control for any variations that might occur from nanotube to nanotube. First, they had to lay down a very thin layer of insulating material for the nanotube to sit on. And they developed a two-step process for adding electrical gates to the nanotube without damaging it. These techniques are by no means ready for manufacturing, but they enabled the IBM group to make the first nanotube devices smaller than 10 nanometers to test in the lab. The work is described online in the journal [URL="http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nl203701g"][I]Nano Letters[/I][/URL].
The IBM group demonstrated that its nine-nanometer nanotube transistor had much lower power consumption than other transistors the same size. And it can carry more current than comparable silicon devices, which means a better signal.
Several major engineering problems remain, says Franklin. First, researchers have to come up with better methods for making pure batches of semiconducting nanotubes—metallic tubes in the mix will short out integrated circuits. Second, they must come up with a way to place large numbers of nanotubes on a surface with perfect alignment.[/release]
[URL="http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/39532/?mod=chfeatured"]Source[/URL]
That is cool.
That is cool.
Poor Silicon Valley...
That is cool.
carbon
why you so motherfucking awesome
Seriously though, carbon nanotubes are freaking [I]amazing[/I].
That is refreshing
[QUOTE=valkery;34439812]Poor Silicon Valley...[/QUOTE]
Nanotube Valley springs up overnight!
That is warm
Have we reached our limits? :L
That is hot.
That is quick.
That is fucking sexy.
so does dat mene dat gurls r guna have liek nanotube implants or sumting? robot boobs?
Not surprising, carbon nanotubes are like microscopic unicorns that shit diamonds on every competitor.
carbon nanotubes = our generations accomplishment
[QUOTE=krazipanda;34440233]carbon nanotubes = our generations accomplishment[/QUOTE]
if that's all then I'm seriously sad
I mean, its big but not like, car or radio or flu cure big.
[QUOTE=J!NX;34440361]if that's all then I'm seriously sad
I mean, its big but not like, car or radio or flu cure big.[/QUOTE]
I disagree, the implications this could have for future technology are bigger than radio.
[QUOTE=J!NX;34440361]if that's all then I'm seriously sad
I mean, its big but not like, car or radio or flu cure big.[/QUOTE]
Carbon Nanotubes are absolutely massive in potential, they have a vast range of uses, super strong materials, extremely fast computing, medical technologies, space aplications, their electrical potentials are massive. Ultracapacitors, super thin and effective cables/wires, batteries as thin as paper, solar cells. Heck for medicine you can insert them into cancerous areas and excite them with radio waves and that can kill the cancerous cells. We're going to find more and more uses for carbon nanotubes as time comes. Their potential is equivalent, if not greater than the space age advances.
Carbon Nanotube Junction?
Please dont go away.
But can nanotube breast implants out perform silicone ones?
No? Checkmate [img]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-smug.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=Motherfuckers;34441582]But can nanotube breast implants out perform silicone ones?
No? Checkmate [img]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-smug.gif[/img][/QUOTE]
Well considering it they could probably be used to tow cars in some horrible manner and other stuff, yeah nanotubes are better.
Tech Up!
United Nations has researched Nanotubes: Nanoprocessors.
Someone build an 80286 out of these, I want one!
That is cool.
[QUOTE=Delrainn;34439974]Have we reached our limits? :L[/QUOTE]
current intel lithography is at 32nm, latest soon to be 22nm, Ivy Bridge is just around the corner
14/15nm lithography is due to 2013 so by 2016 they will reach the limit. By then intel should probably move on to vertical design
[editline]29th January 2012[/editline]
so Moore's law won't die so soon
[editline]29th January 2012[/editline]
Even if vertical design is just cheating Moore's law
[editline]29th January 2012[/editline]
Here's a roadmap for anyone interested
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/94/IntelProcessorRoadmap-3.svg/1000px-IntelProcessorRoadmap-3.svg.png[/img]
Skylake is the beginning of the end of Silicon, at least for Intel
i doubt AMD has enough monies for nanotube R&D
[editline]29th January 2012[/editline]
Unless intel is investing heavily on vertical design, the end is almost near, i mean, with vertical design you can theoretically increase transistor count 20-fold
[QUOTE=DrBreen;34445448]Skylake is the beginning of the end of Silicon, at least for Intel
i doubt AMD has enough monies for nanotube R&D
[editline]29th January 2012[/editline]
Unless intel is investing heavily on vertical design, the end is almost near, i mean, with vertical design you can theoretically increase transistor count 20-fold[/QUOTE]
By vertical design he means making silicon plate (which is 2D circuit) an silicon space (which is 3D circuit).
That is cool.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
